by Bill Bryson
Marrella, one of over a hundred species of a previously unknown type found by Walcott. (Credit 21.4)
It is almost impossible for us, whose time on Earth is limited to a breezy few decades, to appreciate how remote in time from us the Cambrian outburst was. If you could fly backwards into the past at the rate of one year per second, it would take you about half an hour to reach the time of Christ, and a little over three weeks to get back to the beginnings of human life. But it would take you twenty years to reach the dawn of the Cambrian period. It was, in other words, an extremely long time ago and the world was a very different place.
For one thing, 500 million years ago and more when the Burgess Shale was formed it wasn’t at the top of a mountain but at the foot of one. Specifically, it was in a shallow ocean basin at the bottom of a steep cliff. The seas of that time teemed with life, but normally the animals left no record because they were soft-bodied and decayed upon dying. At Burgess, however, the cliff collapsed and the creatures below, entombed in a mudslide, were pressed like flowers in a book, their features preserved in wondrous detail.
In annual summer trips from 1910 to 1925 (by which time he was seventy-five years old), Walcott excavated tens of thousands of specimens (Gould says eighty thousand; the normally unimpeachable fact checkers of National Geographic say sixty thousand), which he brought back to Washington for further study. In both sheer numbers and diversity the collection was unparalleled. Some of the Burgess fossils had shells; many others did not. Some of the creatures were sighted, others blind. The variety was enormous, consisting of 140 species, by one count. “The Burgess Shale included a range of disparity in anatomical designs never again equaled, and not matched today by all the creatures in the world’s oceans,” Gould wrote.
Unfortunately, according to Gould, Walcott failed to discern the significance of what he had found. “Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,” Gould wrote in another work, Eight Little Piggies, “Walcott then proceeded to misinterpret these magnificent fossils in the deepest possible way.” He placed them into modern groups, making them ancestral to today’s worms, jellyfish and other creatures, and thus failed to appreciate their distinctness. “Under such an interpretation,” Gould sighed, “life began in primordial simplicity and moved inexorably, predictably onward to more and better.”
Walcott died in 1927 and the Burgess fossils were largely forgotten. For nearly half a century they stayed shut away in drawers in the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, seldom consulted and never questioned. Then in 1973 a graduate student from Cambridge University named Simon Conway Morris paid a visit to the collection. He was astonished by what he found. The fossils were far more varied and magnificent than Walcott had indicated in his writings. In taxonomy the category that describes the basic body plans of organisms is the phylum, and here, Conway Morris concluded, were drawer after drawer of such anatomical singularities—all amazingly and unaccountably unrecognized by the man who had found them.
With his supervisor, Harry Whittington, and fellow graduate student Derek Briggs, Conway Morris spent the next several years making a systematic revision of the entire collection, and cranking out one exciting monograph after another as discovery piled upon discovery. Many of the creatures employed body plans that were not simply unlike anything seen before or since, but were bizarrely different. One, Opabinia, had five eyes and a nozzle-like snout with claws on the end. Another, a disc-shaped being called Peytoia, looked almost comically like a circular pineapple slice. A third had evidently tottered about on rows of stilt-like legs, and was so odd that they named it Hallucigenia. There was so much unrecognized novelty in the collection that at one point upon opening a new drawer Conway Morris famously was heard to mutter, “Oh fuck, not another phylum.”
The English team’s revisions showed that the Cambrian had been a time of unparalleled innovation and experimentation in body designs. For almost four billion years life had dawdled along without any detectable ambitions in the direction of complexity, and then suddenly, in the space of just five or ten million years, it had created all the basic body designs still in use today. Name a creature, from a nematode worm to Cameron Diaz, and they all use architecture first created in the Cambrian party.
What was most surprising, however, was that there were so many body designs that had failed to make the cut, so to speak, and left no descendants. Altogether, according to Gould, at least fifteen and perhaps as many as twenty of the Burgess animals belonged to no recognized phylum. (The number soon grew in some popular accounts to as many as a hundred—far more than the Cambridge scientists ever actually claimed.) “The history of life,” wrote Gould, “is a story of massive removal followed by differentiation within a few surviving stocks, not the conventional tale of steadily increasing excellence, complexity, and diversity.” Evolutionary success, it appeared, was a lottery.
Hallucigenia, one of the many weird, and, as it turned out, exceedingly controversial, finds from Canada. (Credit 21.5)
One creature that did manage to slip through, a small wormlike being called Pikaia gracilens, was found to have a primitive spinal column, making it the earliest known ancestor of all later vertebrates, including us. Pikaia were by no means abundant among the Burgess fossils, so goodness knows how close they may have come to extinction. Gould, in a famous quotation, leaves no doubt that he sees our lineal success as a fortunate fluke: “Wind back the tape of life to the early days of the Burgess Shale; let it play again from an identical starting point, and the chance becomes vanishingly small that anything like human intelligence would grace the replay.”
Gould’s Wonderful Life was published in 1989 to general critical acclaim and was a great commercial success. What wasn’t generally known was that many scientists didn’t agree with Gould’s conclusions at all, and that it was all soon to get very ugly. In the context of the Cambrian, “explosion” would soon have more to do with modern tempers than ancient physiological facts. In fact, we now know, complex organisms existed at least a hundred million years before the Cambrian. We should have known a whole lot sooner. Nearly forty years after Walcott made his discovery in Canada, on the other side of the planet in Australia a young geologist named Reginald Sprigg found something even older and in its way just as remarkable.
In 1946 Sprigg, a young assistant government geologist for the state of South Australia, was sent to make a survey of abandoned mines in the Ediacaran Hills of the Flinders Range, an expanse of baking outback some 500 kilometres north of Adelaide. The idea was to see if there were any old mines that might be profitably reworked using newer technologies, so he wasn’t studying surface rocks at all, still less fossils. But one day, while eating his lunch, Sprigg idly overturned a hunk of sandstone and was surprised—to put it mildly—to see that the rock’s surface was covered in delicate fossils, rather like the impressions leaves make in mud. These rocks predated the Cambrian explosion. He was looking at the dawn of visible life.
Sprigg submitted a paper to Nature, but it was turned down. He read it instead at the next annual meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, but it failed to find favour with the association’s head, who said the Ediacaran imprints were merely “fortuitous inorganic markings”—patterns made by wind or rain or tides, but not living beings. His hopes not yet entirely crushed, Sprigg travelled to London and presented his findings to the 1948 International Geological Congress, but failed to excite either interest or belief. Finally, for want of a better outlet, he published his findings in the Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia. Then he quit his government job and took up oil exploration.
A cast of Mawsonite spriggi, a specimen of Ediacaran fauna from Australia, showing that complex body forms clearly predated the Cambrian period. (Credit 21.6)
Nine years later, in 1957, a schoolboy named Roger Mason, while walking through Charnwood Forest in the English Midlands, found a rock with a strange fossil in it, similar to a modern sea pen and
exactly like some of the specimens Sprigg had found and been trying to tell everyone about ever since. The schoolboy handed it in to a palaeontologist at the University of Leicester, who identified it at once as Precambrian. Young Mason got his picture in the papers and was treated as a precocious hero; he still is in many books. The specimen was named in his honour Charnia masoni.
Today some of Sprigg’s original Ediacaran specimens, along with many of the other fifteen hundred that have been found throughout the Flinders Range since that time, can be seen in a glass case in an upstairs room of the stout and lovely South Australian Museum in Adelaide, but they don’t attract a great deal of attention. The delicately etched patterns are rather faint and not terribly arresting to the untrained eye. They are mostly small and disc-shaped, with occasional, vague trailing ribbons. Fortey has described them as “soft-bodied oddities.”
The South Australian geologist Reginald Sprigg, who in 1946 found relics of the earliest complex living organisms. His discovery was repeatedly dismissed by experts, and he eventually turned his back on geology in favour of oil exploration. (Credit 21.7)
There is still very little agreement about what these things were or how they lived. They had, as far as can be told, no mouth or anus with which to take in and discharge digestive materials, and no internal organs with which to process them along the way. “In life,” Fortey says, “most of them probably simply lay upon the surface of the sandy sediment, like soft, structureless and inanimate flatfish.” At their liveliest, they were no more complex than jellyfish. All the Ediacaran creatures were diploblastic, meaning they were built from two layers of tissue. With the exception of jellyfish, all animals today are triploblastic.
Some experts think they weren’t animals at all, but more like plants or fungi. The distinctions between plant and animal are not always clear even now. The modern sponge spends its life fixed to a single spot and has no eyes or brain or beating heart, and yet is an animal. “When we go back to the Precambrian the differences between plants and animals were probably even less clear,” says Fortey. “There isn’t any rule that says you have to be demonstrably one or the other.”
Nor is it agreed that the Ediacaran organisms are in any way ancestral to anything alive today (except possibly some jellyfish). Many authorities see them as a kind of failed experiment, a stab at complexity that didn’t take, possibly because the sluggish Ediacaran organisms were devoured or outcompeted by the lither and more sophisticated animals of the Cambrian period.
“There is nothing closely similar alive today,” Fortey has written. “They are difficult to interpret as any kind of ancestors of what was to follow.”
The feeling was that ultimately they weren’t terribly important to the development of life on Earth. Many authorities believe that there was a mass extermination at the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary and that all the Ediacaran creatures (except the uncertain jellyfish) failed to move on to the next phase. The real business of complex life, in other words, started with the Cambrian explosion. That’s how Gould saw it, in any case.
As for the revisions of the Burgess Shale fossils, almost at once people began to question the interpretations and, in particular, Gould’s interpretation of the interpretations. “From the first there were a number of scientists who doubted the account that Steve Gould had presented, however much they admired the manner of its delivery,” Fortey wrote in Life. That is putting it mildly.
“If only Stephen Gould could think as clearly as he writes!” barked the Oxford academic Richard Dawkins in the opening line of a review (in the Sunday Telegraph) of Wonderful Life. Dawkins acknowledged that the book was “unputdownable” and a “literary tour-de-force,” but accused Gould of engaging in a “grandiloquent and near-disingenuous” misrepresentation of the facts by suggesting that the Burgess revisions had stunned the palaeontological community. “The view that he is attacking—that evolution marches inexorably towards a pinnacle such as man—has not been believed for 50 years,” Dawkins fumed.
That was a subtlety lost on many general reviewers. One, writing in the New York Times Book Review, cheerfully suggested that as a result of Gould’s book scientists “have been throwing out some preconceptions that they had not examined for generations. They are, reluctantly or enthusiastically, accepting the idea that humans are as much an accident of nature as a product of orderly development.”
But the real heat directed at Gould arose from the belief that many of his conclusions were simply mistaken or carelessly inflated. Writing in the journal Evolution, Dawkins attacked Gould’s assertions that “evolution in the Cambrian was a different kind of process from today” and expressed exasperation at Gould’s repeated suggestions that “the Cambrian was a period of evolutionary ‘experiment,’ evolutionary ‘trial and error,’ evolutionary ‘false starts’…It was the fertile time when all the great ‘fundamental body plans’ were invented. Nowadays, evolution just tinkers with old body plans. Back in the Cambrian, new phyla and new classes arose. Nowadays we only get new species!”
The Harvard palaeontologist and born controversialist Stephen Jay Gould, whose popular interpretations of the Burgess Shale finds angered some in the scientific community. (Credit 21.8)
Noting how often this idea—that there are no new body plans—is picked up, Dawkins says: “It is as though a gardener looked at an oak tree and remarked, wonderingly: ‘Isn’t it strange that no major new boughs have appeared on this tree for many years? These days, all the new growth appears to be at the twig level.’”
“It was a strange time,” Fortey says now, “especially when you reflected that this was all about something that happened five hundred million years ago, but feelings really did run quite high. I joked in one of my books that I felt as if I ought to put a safety helmet on before writing about the Cambrian period, but it did actually feel a bit like that.”
Strangest of all was the response of one of the heroes of Wonderful Life, Simon Conway Morris, who startled many in the palaeontological community by rounding abruptly on Gould in a book of his own, The Crucible of Creation. “I have never encountered such spleen in a book by a professional,” Fortey wrote later. “The casual reader of The Crucible of Creation, unaware of the history, would never gather that the author’s views had once been close to (if not actually shared with) Gould’s.”
When I asked Fortey about it, he said: “Well, it was very strange, quite shocking really, because Gould’s portrayal of him had been so flattering. I could only assume that Simon was embarrassed. You know, science changes but books are permanent, and I suppose he regretted being so irremediably associated with views that he no longer altogether held. There was all that stuff about ‘Oh fuck, another phylum’ and I expect he regretted being famous for that. You’d never know from reading Simon’s book that his views had once been nearly identical to Gould’s.”
What happened was that the early Cambrian fossils began to undergo a period of critical reappraisal. Fortey and Derek Briggs—one of the other principals in Gould’s book—used a method known as cladistics to compare the various Burgess fossils. In simple terms, cladistics consists of organizing organisms on the basis of shared features. Fortey gives as an example the idea of comparing a shrew and an elephant. If you considered the elephant’s large size and striking trunk you might conclude that it could have little in common with a tiny, sniffling shrew. But if you compared both of them with a lizard, you would see that the elephant and shrew were in fact built to much the same plan. In essence, what Fortey is saying is that Gould saw elephants and shrews where he and Briggs saw mammals. The Burgess creatures, they believed, weren’t as strange and various as they appeared at first sight. “They were often no stranger than trilobites,” Fortey says now. “It is just that we have had a century or so to get used to trilobites. Familiarity, you know, breeds familiarity.”
This wasn’t, I should note, because of sloppiness or inattention. Interpreting the forms and relationships of ancient animals on the basis of often
distorted and fragmentary evidence is clearly a tricky business. Edward O. Wilson has noted that if you took selected species of modern insects and presented them as Burgess-style fossils nobody would ever guess that they were all from the same phylum, so different are their body plans. Also instrumental in helping revisions were the discoveries of two further early Cambrian sites, one in Greenland and one in China, plus more scattered finds, which among them yielded many additional and often better specimens.
A fossilized Anomalocaris, the creature illustrated at the start of the chapter. Because so many of the Burgess Shale creatures were fragmented and distorted during fossilization, their interpretation was bound to be a matter of debate. (Credit 21.9)
The upshot is that the Burgess fossils were found to be not so different after all. Hallucigenia, it turned out, had been reconstructed upside down. Its stilt-like legs were actually spikes along its back. Peytoia, the weird creature that looked like a pineapple slice, was found to be not a distinct creature but merely part of a larger animal called Anomalocaris. Many of the Burgess specimens have now been assigned to living phyla—just where Walcott put them in the first place. Hallucigenia and some others are thought to be related to Onychophora a group of caterpillar-like animals. Others have been reclassified as precursors of the modern annelids. In fact, says Fortey, “there are relatively few Cambrian designs that are wholly novel. More often they turn out to be just interesting elaborations of well-established designs.” As he wrote in Life: “None was as strange as a present day barnacle, nor as grotesque as a queen termite.”